May 3, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I would say “I can’t wait,” but obviously that’s what I’ve been doing the past few years.
sounds like typical Malick — half love it and the other half can go fuck themselves…
a site about big evil corporations that don’t like
smaller players in movies and tv ..
http://www.fightforindependents.org/
DP – you deal with both – small and huge film studios – any thoughts on this ?
I’m greatly looking forward to mocking critics’ forthcoming orgy-tastic fellating of Malick’s affected transcendentalism. if the movie even sniffs at having a possible interpretation of “being too deep/difficult/tough for THEM to understand” then it will be the most critically praised movie in decades.
I’m sure the critics are waiting with baited breath, hoping to the high heavens that Tree of Life is box office flop, because that will be the only thing that will ensure they will praise it unreservedly and love it to death forever. A box office flop PROVES that THEY are TOO DUMB to understand the movie, and in turn, proves how awesome and smart and superior the critics are.
And the smarter critics are probably also preparing to develop a Tree of Life backlash. If the movie is unexpectedly liked by many in the public, if it’s not a complete box office disaster but does respectable business, if that is the case these critics are on hand to do their duty of bringing all the other critics back to earth. They will gently rebuke–at first–the other critics for praising it as the greatest movie ever, and as the praise spreads, these critics will become more strident in rebuking the excessive fellation. Affected Transcendentalism will be tossed about with impunity; eventually the critics that loved the film but didn’t think it was the greatest will come to hate the film because they can’t stand all the OMGMALICK ejaculation of commentary-less, analysis-free praise.
The smartest critics will pull a Farber and decide that either Transformers 3 or Captain America are the real artistic triumphs of the year, and they’ll expend all their critical efforts in an attempt to build a false argument of words in support of those films, but they will knowingly do so ironically, using their excessive mountains of praise and overdetermination to mock the coming insane oceans of jismatic praise for the Malick-piece.
Right, movielocke, because all critics are in lockstep and share the same views, much like the Borg.
Yeah, I’m not exactly seeing how movielocke’s preemptive “reaction” is any less kneejerk than the ones he’s anticipating.
movielocke, any room in all that for the possibility that you (or anyone else) might honestly like the film? Or is that the one reaction that’s inconceivable, even hypothetically?
how can you trust Cannes audience reaction?
they gave Kevin Smith a standing ovation for Clerks 2.
FOR CLERKS 2…..
So let’s just say when a Cannes audience reacts one way or another, i’m not exactly using that as a barometer.
Yancyskancy took the words right out of my mouth:
“I’m not exactly seeing how movielocke’s preemptive “reaction” is any less kneejerk than the ones he’s anticipating.”
Can’t people just sit back and be optimistic anymore?
Also, many critics do to plenty of foreign filmmakers what movielocke is claiming they all do to Terrence Malick. But because Malick’s films are in English and therefore more easy to see firsthand, he bears the brunt that should be shared by other directors around the world.
That being said, my mind is never made up until I’ve seen the film for myself…at least once.
It’s also not fair to keep badmouthing Malick, because he can’t help the expectations that are being forced upon his films. If The Tree of Life was by an unknown filmmaker and emerged from seemingly out of nowhere at some festival, it would be treated far more gently than it is at this moment.
you can trust a Cannes audience because they booed L’Avventura. This shows that they are both discerning, smart, and can see through bullshit masquerading as art.
and yes yancy, the whole point is to be as kneejerk in order to illustrate that which I’m satirizing. 😉 It’s not nearly as ironic if it’s not the same thing on the opposite side.
I supposed it is conceivable that a critic may actually like Tree of Life. But I doubt they will like it on the merits of it as itself. I expect most of the reaction to be about what critics want Tree of Life to be, and what they see in the mirror it holds up. There will be much pontificating and ruminating and attempts at psychoanalysis of themselves-as-Malick. 😉 I fully expect it will actually be a tremendous film, but I also expect to go into it knowing it is critic-bait and the critical attempts to contain the film/boil it down to a few paragraphs, encompass it in a totalizing ‘interrpretation’ etc will do a disservice to the film, revealing more about the critics headspace than it does about the art itself.
Last time we saw this was with White Ribbon, every critic got so hung up in OMG-Proto-nazis-pretty-pictures! interpretation that they never really got at any of the more interesting ideas in the film. On the other hand, what I thought were the most interesting ideas in the film are probably just a result of my personal mirror; stemming from the research baggage I bring to most films.
I fully cop to being completely complicit in being totally and unfairly subjective in every movie I’ve ever watched. It’s part of the fun of being human.
and people move in herds, including critics.
I’m making a prediction that there will be a critical herd behavior reaction to Tree of Life. I’m equally confident there will be a critical herd reaction to Transformers 3. Neither one of these herd reactions will be noticed, but the reaction will be confused with being objective proof of the movies’ qualities.
Critics love Tree of Life ergo it is a good movie. Critics hate Transformers ergo it is a bad movie. The beauty of this whole set up is that you get trapped in a little feedback loop that will only confirm your position. Audiences love transformers, ergo it is a bad movie. Audiences hate Tree of Life, ergo it is a good movie. It’s so simple to take any piece of evidence and twist it in your favor. A box office failure for Tree of Life isn’t proof that the filmmaking fails to connect to audiences, but proof that audiences are stupid. A box office success for Transformers 3 isn’t proof that the filmmaking successfully connects to audiences but proof that audiences are stupid. And I’m choosing Transformers because I expect it to be the utter polar opposite of Tree of Life in pretty much every respect.
The point is that our brains our designed to see what we want to see from whatever it is that is before us. Whether it is Transformers or Tree of Life, we humans, audiences and critics both will react with Confirmation bias and Selection bias. We will see what we want to see. Escaping that feedback loop is as important for a critic, content to see nothing in transformers as it is important for an audience, content to see nothing in tree of life.
This is a game we play, a dance we see play out year in and year out. it’s a way of keeping score, of seperating the plebes and patricians, of sorting out communities and demographics. a way of saying “I am not this this and this but I am that and that”. It’s all herd behavior and alpha posturing.
Movielocke: I have to ask — were you, like me, underwhelmed by Thin Red Line?
In any event: I had to pass on a Tree of Life screening today because of a last-minute work conflict. But I probably will go see it in a theater during its first-run release — even though I didn’t bother with The New World.
i thought most critics were underwhelmed by Thin Red Line.
I think there were a whole lot of reluctant reccomendations.
Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I recall feeling like I was in a distinct minority for not liking that one.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/cannes-2011-review-michel-hazanavicius-bw-silent-film-the-artist/
the hit of Cannes… a black and white silent film?
interesting.
I feel that the negative reaction to the Thin Red Line had a lot to do with expectations versus what the film was….BUT, I feel ALL of Malick’s movies get a lot of mileage they don’t deserve. TRL is breath-taking in some sections and very heavy-handed in others. The opening sequence in TRL and The New World are spellbinding. Just brilliant. But there are long, long stretches in both that are sure are pretty but over done
If I’m remembering correctly, didn’t critics at Cannes pan INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and CHE? I remember both being called let-downs and minor works when I consider them benchmarks for two of the most exciting, younger American directors working. And also, for a fest that offers the elite filmmaking around the world, often times from rule breaking masters, the negative criticisms tend to be surprsingly middle brow. For instance, both those pictures were singled out for being “long” and “boring” and “slow”, with not much of an attempt to engage with either their stylistic or thematic ambitions, whether seen as a failure or a success.
In short, I think the festival and its filmmakers are awesome, but I don’t give much creedence to the reception post-screenings.
Joe… you skipping Malick movies concerns me.
Critics were mixed on the great The Thin Red Line. Still got nominated for Best Picture.
I don’t expect Tree of Life to land there… but like most of Malick, it is too easy to dismiss and too easy to overpraise.
Jean Dujardin is one of the biggest stars in France and shame on us in the US for not getting the guy’s genius earlier. (That would be “The Hazanavicius film.”) Hazanavicius is a very talented guy, but Dujardin is the one who drives those movies… and I am pretty comfortable guessing that includes The Artist.
Look for critics to rent OSS 117 and sequel in droves when they get back. I have French regioned copies of some of his other stuff if anyone needs to borrow them.
David: I spent several years waiting for folks in the US to recognize the genius that is Daniel Auteuil. And even now, though I know many discerning critics give him his props — I still run into colleagues (never mind civilians) who have no earthly idea who I’m talking about when I mention his name.
hey Joe – we had a discussion about Mallick a month ago – i said i had no idea who he was cause i didn’t see most of his movies ..he only makes like 1 a year ..
so i’m wondering all this new exposure helps out his older movies .
it’s hard to tell how long this movie will last for the general public – it’s got the Brad Pitt factor ..
it could be in another 8 movie festivals and the hype will die down August 2011..hard to tell ..
will there be a DP/30 with Mallick and Pitt ? super important films always get a DP/30 but Pitt must be busy making even more movies to make sure his fans get more award winning Pitt for the entire world market.
FWIW, Joe, The Thin Red Line’s RotTom was 79% – 17 of the 82 reviews were thumbs-down.
This is how I felt about Thin Red Line shortly after seeing it (at the bottom):
http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/1999_thb/990227_weekend.html
Straw Dogs 2011 Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRFiLq3QQFg
i just saw the Straw Dogs 1971 version – it does look
outdated but i didn’t like it – the one scene that was
supposed to be shocking wasn’t shocking .. and every
bad guy looked the same.
the new version will fix the fashion – go HD .. but if
they want a decent movie they need to change a lot of small things – if they keep that one important scene
than Kate Bosworth is going to get noticed for it and
there will endless discussion of it..
this movie reminds of I Spit on Your Grave which is pretty much the same – bad guys and 1 important scene.
so movie critics – do you care about this remake ?
Joe: NEW WORLD is extraordinarily beautiful and heartbreaking. You should really check it out. THIN RED LINE seemed like a convoluted mess to me when I first saw it, but it really benefits from repeat viewing and I truly love it now.
sanjaya, did you fall out of your highchair head-first? (who do you think you’re kidding)
“I’m making a prediction that there will be a critical herd behavior reaction to Tree of Life. I’m equally confident there will be a critical herd reaction to Transformers 3. Neither one of these herd reactions will be noticed, but the reaction will be confused with being objective proof of the movies’ qualities”
confused with being objective proof by whom, movielocke, said herd of critics? because nobody else gives a shit
(forgot to say, chalk me up in the ‘pro’-new world column, a lovely movie)
I still remember a blow-out fight I had with Chris Columbus (yes, Mr. “Home Alone” and “Harry Potter”) over “Days of Heaven” back at NYU in the fall of ’78.
Chris was absolutely appalled that Malick had replaced most of the dialogue in his (original) script with voiceover narration.
I insisted that the v/n–something Malick had, uh, used quite a bit of in “Badlands”–was already fast on its way to becoming a directorial signature.
So funny/ironic, damning/telling in retrospect.
Just staggered out of “Tree” a few hours ago, and am still loathe to
articulate a borderline coherent (critical) response.
I will say that the 138 minutes flew by in record fashion (it felt shorter to me than most 90-minute movies); that I’m really sorry the p/screening wasn’t held at a theater equipped with digital projection; that “Tree” would have absolutely killed in 3-D (and I’m hardly a 3-D advocate); and that I can’t wait to see it again.
Like most Malick films, the (beyond) lush imagery is so extraordinarily tactile (and deeply sensual) that you actually crave a more immersive cinematic experience than standard 2-D projection can provide.
For the record, “DOH” and “TRL” were my #1 movies (in ’78 and ’98 respectively); and “NW” ranked #2 (behind Wong Kar-wai’s “2046”) in ’05.
But in the year of “Chinatown,” “Godfather II,” “A Woman Under the Influence,” “Lacombe Lucien,” “The Conversaton,” “Daisy Miller,” “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore,” et all, “Badlands” didn’t even make my top 10.
Mea culpa indeed.
I’ve only seen Days of Heaven and The New World.
Days of Heaven had a very interesting and solid story that was, for me, totally at odds with the impressionistic pretty pictures style. In the New World a similar style worked very well with the sort of historical fantasia of the story to deliver some really memorable moments: the first contact of the English arrival, John Smith’s captivity with the Indians, Pocahantas in England. Unfortunately the whole Pocahantas-John Smith romance was straight out of Disney and doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny. I’ll be interested to see if Malick’s formidable style has found a subject that is equal to it.
OK, New World admirers, I have to ask: Which version of the movie are you talking about? Because aren’t there something like two or three versions, clocking in at two or three different lengths?
JL: There are three: the initial LA/NY exclusive Oscar qualifying length which was recut and shortened by Malick before general release the following February, then a longer extended cut that recently came out on video and played LACMA over the weekend. I’ve only seen the second, but can’t imagine not loving the third.
I saw TREE OF LIFE today and am still processing it. For the record, I haaaated THE NEW WORLD when I saw it but have since revisited it and kind of love it now. I did NOT like THIN RED LINE at all, mostly due to the celebrities popping up which I felt distracted from what Malick was trying to do/say. I love BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN. I’m just pointing out I’m not a blind fan or apologist or on the flip side, a hater. I take em as they come with Malick.
It took me a good hour to even form a starting point opinion for TREE and then I realized the reason I might be having trouble is because….it’s not very good. It definitely has some moments and I love the dynamic he sets up about nature -vs- grace. The push and pull that’s not just inside of all of us, but inside everything. But that’s all very “Malick” and has been done better previously. Pitt is outstanding and Penn is a broody, cold, pointless character.
But still…it’s an affecting film and I don’t want to be too harsh until I ruminate. I also will cop to pretty high expectations and excitement on my end and so, sooo rarely does that ever pay off. Still, I’m starting to fear it’s just not a very good film. Beauty and tone poem loveliness aside, I’m not sure what’s there. But even writing that rings false because I think the film is intensely personal and there’s obviously alot there for Malick. Hmm…
Here’s the thing: I saw Blade Runner during one of its very first sneak previews, in Dallas, years ago. This was the cut without the narration, without the upbeat ending. I didn’t much care for it. When it was released in theaters, I was told by admirers that I should really see the “revised” version, that it would change my mind. It didn’t. Flash-forward a decade or so, and I view one of the re-revised versions on DVD. And you know what? I can appreciate the movie’s influence — hell, I included it in my book about influential films — but I still didn’t care for it.
So I learned my lesson: Trust your first instincts. I saw the first cut of Donnie Darko when it premiered at Sundance several years ago — and didn’t like it. I have since been told by many folks (including a few whose opinions I genuinely respect) that I should look at the version released in theaters or the so-called “Director’s Cut” (which, as far as I can tell, is the same goddamn version I saw at Sundance). So during a recent Border’s going out of business sale, I bought a Blu-Ray of Donnie Darko — “Director’s Cut” — and plan to look at it sometime this summer, when I don’t have many classes to teach. But I have to say: I’m skeptical.
So: If I ever look at The New World — and I might, prior to seeing Tree of Life — I plan on giving it only one shot. Is the version currently available on DVD/Blu-Ray the one to watch?
So what’s it in for WB to allow McFarlane to remake the Flinstones for FOX?
Merchandise? Relevancy?
Does syndication have the same value as it did five or six years ago? And if WB has syndi rights, won’t they just dump it onto Adult Swim?
I’m not sure I get the point of this deal. A movie by Seth, yeah, but a show not on WB or hell, even “very funny” TBS…what’s the upside?
Moviemaker: Wait, I’m sorry, I skipped over something important — are you the other critic who will actually admit to liking Daisy Miller?
Joe-
I almost think TREE might be better without a recent viewing of THE NEW WORLD. Very similar themes but then again, Malick’s in auteur territory all the way. That being said, the directors cut is 10000% the way to go on NEW WORLD.
And I also disagree with your first instinct idea. I’ve seen many a film fest film that I flipped for only to force friends to see it later and wonder WTF I was thinking. Some movies, Malick’s a terrific example, are better served with some other peoples opinions thrown in before viewing. I’ll readily admit I didn’t and don’t “get” alot of what he’s going after. A good example is theology; I don’t know shit about God stuff.
Joe, the Director’s Cut of DONNIE DARKO, in my opinion, is inferior. All of the new scenes of character development are nice additions, but when it comes to the plot and story, it’s now way more didatic and expository about what exactly is going on and how. A lot of the mystery and ambiguity that, for me, was so wonderful in the theatrical cut is gone. I’m a fan of the movie and Kelly either way, but it’s one of the few cases where I prefer the original cut.
I’ve never seen the DC of THE NEW WORLD. I loved the verson I saw so I’ll have to check that out.
Don: I will grant you that SOMETIMES your first impression can change. But only when you do. Like, for example, when I took a second look at Irvin Kershner’s Loving.
http://movingpictureblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/gone-but-not-forgotten-leslie-nielsen.html
“Moviemaker,” lol?
Yeah, Joe. “Daisy” has always been one of my favorite Bogdanovich films. It’s just another reason why 1974 remains one of the pinnacles of my movie-loving life.
I’m really shocked that you haven’t seen “The New World” in any of its various incarnations (shades of the re-edits of Scorsese’s “New York, New York” back in the day).
The first cut of “NW” I saw was the NY/LA version which absolutely blew me away. I didn’t see the slightly modified (135-minute) cut–the one most people saw during its theatrical release–until DVD. And I didn’t see the “extended play” version until Blu-Ray.
My preferred cut remains the (“original”) 149-minute version, probably because it was my first exposure to the film.
Yet, at 172 minutes the long-form “NW” has even more Malick to love.
Apples and oranges, Joe. A masterpiece is a masterpiece, and a thing of beauty is a joy forever.
OK, I have just ordered the extended cut of The New World from Amazon. Seriously. Now, I won’t promise to watch it right away, but…
JKIll: Maybe I am wrong — trust me, that’s always a possibility — but isn’t the “Director’s Cut” of Donnie Darko the version originally premiered at Sundance? If so, well, it wouldn’t be the first time that a re-cut version is the superior version. I’m sorry that Peter Fonda felt compelled to re-cut The Hired Hand before its original theatrical run, but I have to say — the version released in theaters (without the subplot involving Larry Hagman, who loomed large in footage restored for the TV version) is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Of course, knowing that Hired Hand turns 40 this year — and that I vividly recall seeing it in a theater, with a date, while I was in college — is profoundly depressing to me. On the other hand: Would love to see a Blu-Ray of that one.
MovieMAN: On the strength of Daisy Miller and Bad Company, I thought Barry Brown was going to become a major star. Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes…
Joe, I think it’s the Sundance cut with some completely new additions involving cgi, voice overs and text on the screen, although I could be wrong too. But either way, that’s an interesting point since, for some reason, I think we tend to assume the original edit of something is always going to be superior. I’m not sure why that is but it seems ingrained in film culture.
Also, I’m glad you mentioned THE HIRED HAND which I’ve been meaning to watch for a while now. Your endorsement of it means I’ll try to watch it asap.
JKIll: Something else to consider: if you’re a film critic — actually, if you’re any kind of journalist — at some point in your career (if not several points in your career), you’ve had an editor cut or revise or “correct” something you’ve written. So, of course, you’ll always sympathize with the director who claims “the suits” messed up his/her movie.
The director’s cut business has become a tricky game. It’s one thing in the case of a clearly studio-mutilated movie, like ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST/AMERICA or PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID or THE WILD ROVERS, quite another when the director needlessly tinkers after the fact, like Oliver Stone, George Lucas, Michael Mann, Francis Coppola and Bogdanovich seem obssessed with doing. And then there are those dreaded “extended cuts” where they add scenes but the director isn’t involved. In the case of Malick, I assume he was pushing to meet a deadline and got some pressure from New Line when the initial run of NEW WORLD met with indifference. THIN RED LINE actually feels incomplete to me and I’d love to see a longer cut of that. Ironically, the script for THIN RED LINE, though long, was incredibly tight and coherent and he sort of jettisoned it all in editing. Sometimes a shorter film can feel longer. Am curious about Lonergan’s upcoming MARGARET — why not just release it at 3hrs at this point? It’s not like it’s going to be a wide release anyway or make any less money in a longer form. I also think the new owners of Miramax should let all the filmmakers reconstitute their butchered-by-Harvey-Scissorhands catalog movies. Would love to see a coherent version of GANGS OF NEW YORK, though it’s ultimately DiCaprio and Diaz who sink that movie more than anything else, so it may not make a difference.
Nikki: Have you actually read the original script? Reason I ask: I read James Jones’ novel literally decades ago, so my memory of it isn’t 100 percent fresh. As I recall, though, there were strong indications of a sexual relationship between 2 soldiers. But there’s no sign of that in the movie. Was there anything like that in the script?
benton’s ‘bad company’ is one of my all-time favourite movies (seeing it mentioned i just had to say that, no doubt repeating myself)
keeping track of all the cuts of movies – original cuts, theatrical cuts, director’s cuts, extended cuts, esp. in this day and age of dvd/blu-ray with all the cuts seemingly seeing the light of day at some point, sometimes all at the same time – is a giant pain in the ass. i know my blu-ray of ‘the new world’ is ‘the extended cut’, which is about a half hour longer than the theatrical cut, which i have on a parallel import DVD but i haven’t watched that version in ages.
the worst offender in terms of multiple versions may be r. scott and ‘blade runner’ (? is there a movie with more versions); i personally have two versions on VHS from back in the day – the original theatrical cut, and then one which is inexplicably slightly longer with a bit a bit of extra footage here and there, couldn’t tell you where exactly, no idea what the deal is with that one – then a DVD of the 90’s ‘director’s cut’, and finally the ‘ultimate collectors edition’ on blu-ray that has a shitload of cuts including the “final” cut, supposedly the ‘definitive’ version (according to r. scott, so i guess he might kinda sorta get to say, tho i tend to pooh-pooh so many fucking versions, for god’s sake man make a choice and stick with it, dithering be damned)
speaking of ‘BL’, i had a weird experience the other night when my boy wanted to watch it with me (after a failed earlier attempt when he was much younger and more hyper and easily bored) and i had a bizarre little mini-freakout trying to decide which version to actually watch with him first, whether to be historically accurate and watch the theatrical ‘happy ending’ version before getting to the revised versions, or to go with ‘the final cut’ with deckard’s unicorns and reflective eye syndrome and such implying that he is himself a replicant, what to do, what to do…(i let him decide, and he chose the theatrical version because it’s the one i saw first as a youngun, so theatrical cut it was)
a couple of his bemused reactions:
tyrell’s impossibly thick coke-bottle eye glasses, what, they can create perfect eyes for the skinjobs but can’t correct human vision?
and in deckard’s flat, when he does the grid-search of leon’s photo on his computer equipment using vocal commands to enlarge the images until he gets that image of zhora, then deckard asks the computer for a “printout” and out pops this tiny little wee polaroid-size photo that could practically fit in your eye, the boy thought that was like the most hilarious thing ever (what, no A4 size printer paper in the future? hahahaha). the only time i’ve heard him laugh harder at a movie was when dignan rides up on his little putt putt motorbike in ‘bottle rocket’. kids.
Leahnz: Maybe you shouldn’t show him any old Star Trek episodes. LOL.
too late, joe. too late.
The theatrical cut of ‘Donnie Darko’ is a far better film than the director’s cut. I didn’t know that the director’s cut resembles the cut that premiered at Sundance. Anyhow, the director’s cut took out all the mystery and the ‘x-factor’ that made DD so intriguing in the first place.
i saw Mother 2009 … good acting – but it just went too long by 30 minutes
here’s the trailer
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3905684505/
Joe: Yes, I did read the script, a long time ago. I don’t recall a homosexual relationship. But all the disparate characters that end up only making fleeting appearances had fleshed out threads, Adrien Brody’s role was more or less the co-lead with Caviziel’s and there weren’t multiple narrators. The script was 180 pages long and definitely meant to be a 3 hour epic, which leads me to think he got his running time by just slashing out huge chunks, rather than compressing the whole.
Leah: I remember that ’80s alternate video cut of BLADE RUNNER, too. It was called the “European Version,” at least in the U.S. You saw the nail go through Rutger Hauer’s hand and the thumbs press into Tyrell’s eye sockets. Also, the great line “I WANT MORE LIFE… FUCKER” was changed to “I WANT MORE LIFE… FATHER,” a change that Ridley Scott kept in his subsequent cuts, which I always thought odd.
No matter how many times RS recuts it, no matter how many critics praise the director’s cut… Blade Runner isn’t Blade Runner to me without the flat Ford narration. Taking out “Sushi– that’s what my wife called me: Cold fish” is like recutting “Escape From New York” in the mid-90s to have an all-kazoo score.
BADLANDS would probably make my top ten American films list. So DAYS OF HEAVEN was a bit of a letdown for me, though I’ve seen it only once, and that was a long time ago. THE THIN RED LINE had much to admire, but the narration drove me nuts. So earnest, so “poetic,” so unlike the brilliant, often quite amusing narration in BADLANDS (not that such disparate films should have identical voiceover styles, of course). I still haven’t caught up with THE NEW WORLD, mostly because I was never sure which freakin’ version to watch. I’m sure I’ll get around to it, and I’ll see THE TREE OF LIFE first chance I get. The narration in the trailer worries me, but the film generally sounds too fascinating to pass up.
Joe, I was finally able to see LOVING a few years ago and loved it. Reminded me of Claude Sautet films from the same era. Was surprised how much of it played out visually (Gordon Willis was the DP). The film is very much of its time, but the theme hasn’t dated — only
the fashions have changed. Segal and Eva Marie Saint are fantastic. Sad to think that it’s highly unlikely that a studio of today would touch such adult, sophisticated material.
Leah- I second your love for Benton’s “Bad Company.” It’s the cinematic equivalent of a note-perfect short story: exquisitely realized, and without an ounce of fat.
And yes, Joe. I was as convinced that Barry Brown’s career would take off into the stratosphere in the early ’70s as I was that Timothy Bottoms–and a decade or so later, Matthew Modine–would become major stars.
Side note to Leah: You might be interested to know that I’m currently directing another play (LaBute’s “reasons to be pretty”).
We’re only into the second week of rehearsals, but so far so good. Maybe because it’s my second time at bat (after Mamet’s “Speed-the-Plow” last fall), but I’m actually enjoying the “process” even more this time.
well said re: ‘bad company’ movieman, adore it. and break a leg doing ‘reasons’, so exciting! (i’m embarrassed to admit i’m not very familiar with ‘reasons to be pretty’ so i’m going to bone up a bit so when you give us an update on the production i’ll be able to picture it a bit better than at the moment anyway, which is to say not at all)
“Leah: I remember that ’80s alternate video cut of BLADE RUNNER, too. It was called the “European Version,” at least in the U.S. You saw the nail go through Rutger Hauer’s hand and the thumbs press into Tyrell’s eye sockets. Also, the great line “I WANT MORE LIFE… FUCKER” was changed to “I WANT MORE LIFE… FATHER…”
i’ll be damned, nikki w., that’s the one, and exactly the added stuff now that you lay it out, more gore. good to know, now i can seem more flash in my knowledge of the many, many BL cuts, it’s exhausting
I’ll definitely keep you posted on “pretty”‘s progress, Leah.
“Blade Runner” confession: I bought the super-deluxe dvd a few years back that had multiple versions of the film, but could never bring myself to sit down and watch them. My sentimental favorite “BR” remains the 1982 U.S. theatrical release version (with Ford’s voiceover narration). I wasn’t nearly as enthused by the ’92 (?) “director’s cut,” even though everyone seems to think it was vastly superior. I still hope to get around to watching all of the various cuts someday (including the one I never saw) to see whether I still like numero uno best.
Ridley Scott is a particularly interesting case in the history of “Directors’ Cuts.”
I love that on “Director’s Cut” disc of ALIEN that was released five or so years ago with “never-before seen footage” that was added for the theatrical re-release, he filmed a video preface denouncing the “Director’s Cut” tag and claiming that the 1979 release WAS his cut.
On the other hand, the studio forcing him to add the Ford voiceover (at least) to BLADE RUNNER is legendary… and if you follow the history of all the other cuts, Scott does not seem to have had any direct involvement in re-editing any of them, but did give his blessing to the FINAL CUT, which was like a reconstruction by a film historian using RS’s production notes or something, a la TOUCH OF EVIL.
So, technically, if the original ’82 theatrical release of BLADE RUNNER isn’t “his” cut but the studio’s… there is no “Director’s Cut,” other than the one Joe Leydon saw in Dallas.
Sad story about being edited, Joe: a journalist friend of mine once got published in Esquire. He had this whole dramatic arc to the piece, where he’s got the reader to the point where they understand that the subject of the piece is some kind of latter-day medicine man unlocking the doors of perception, and all that, leading to a crescendo in which the journalist truth-seeker is swept away in a deluge of psychic baggage… with a killer twist right at the end.
His editor moved that from the end to the beginning, as the hook. As happy as my friend was to be published in Esquire, he was devastated by that edit.
And, for the record: getting edited happens in the world of “Publish or Perish,” too. Only academic superstars generally publish with their prose unmolested.
Everybody’s prose could benefit from a GOOD editor, though, IMHO.
which movies are on top of your list to see in June 2011 ..
super 8 might be good … i don’t want aliens hidden like paranormal or battle LA .. which weren’t hidden but lack of detail .. i want a new cool alien story.
also seems to be a lot of kids in super 8 . lets hope they aren’t stupid kids / teens ..
They have sold the ever-living shit out of Blade Runner. They’re selling a suitcase with 5!!! versions of the film. You know, I feel really ripped off about the whole “Director’s Cut” thing. I got my mother to drive me to the theater in north Florida when I was 13 so I could see this supposed “Director’s Cut” and now I learn that it was cut together by an “archivist” with notes from RS? That there’s a “Final Cut” with “bonus material”? That the easter egg in the metal suitcase is the “almost legendary” “Work Print,” legendarily screened in Dallas in March 82?
WHAT IS THIS SHIT?
That tin tin teaser is about the most underwhelming thing ive ever seen.
I know of the property but am unfamiliar with the comics. That teaser did nothing to excite me.
Again, I am afraid I may be posting something that many (if not most) of you have already read. But for the benefit of those who tuned in late: The ’82 Saturday night sneak preview of Blade Runner at an upscale General Cinema multiplex in Dallas was one of the oddest experiences of my moviegoing life. There’s no other way of putting it: I could feel people in the audience all around me actually turning on the film. I don’t mean they were booing, I don’t meant they were shotuing rude things at the screen. But both my wife and I could sense a severe chill about 15 minutes into the screening, and the temperature only continued to drop as the movie progressed. Again: Nothing so obvious as mass walk-outs (though a handful of folks did depart early). But when I later heard that the movie was being “revised” after generating unfavorable responses at sneak previews, I was not the least bit surprised. Trust me: if you would have been there that night, you, too, would have thought the movie needed to be reworked before opening.
Joe, that’s great and I hear ya. I felt the same way at the opening day of A.I. at Grauman’s. If mass hostility has a vibe, it was present that day. Not from me, as I knew I it was some kind of amazing film that would be debated.
I’ve never liked Ford’s narration in BR since the first time I saw it and had no idea it wasn’t supposed to be there. I think it could have worked, but the sushi line reading is so barren of thought or feeling you can tell Ford is phoning it in. “Feelings. What the hell was happening to me?” They just should have added, “Maybe I’M a Replicant…” But it’s fun to flip through the different versions. That DVD/Blu doc is one of the very best. I still think you could edit a much stronger, emotionally involved cut based on all that extra footage.
An editor once cut out my Balzac quote, “with clean hands and composure” because he didn’t know what it meant.
BLADE RUNNER – Ridley Scott has said that voiceover was considered from the beginning, but what was written and recorded wasn’t to his liking.
DONNIE DARKO – The Director’s cut opens with the INXS song Richard Kelly wanted but couldn’t afford in 2001. It’s a decent song, but the ECHO AND THE BUNNYMEN song used in the theatrical cut was, lyrically and tonally, a perfect fit.
Oh, and that “European Cut” of BLADE RUNNER also had Daryl Hannah putting her fingers up Ford’s nose.
The INXS song was in the version that premiered at Sundance.
Re: Flintstones TV
I had heard Fox was going to do that but I guess the show won’t make to air until 2013. Not sure if that’s Jan ’13 or later that fall, so like 2 seasons from now. I don’t really watch Fox Sunday animation block but I was still a bit disappointed to hear they were dusting off that as opposed to an original series.
I didn’t realize WB had the rights. I wasn’t really thinking where Hanna Barbara got absorbed. I just remember the Flintstones movie coming out through Uni. I know Fox has a currency printing press w/their Family Guy and Simpsons merch. Not sure if Bob’s Burgers or Cleveland show are doing anything.
FX already has Archer. I know you wouldn’t put them back-to-back, but maybe the episodes go from network to cable w/in Fox? Couldn’t it be where syndication would be non-exclusive, like 2 and a Half Men? Maybe WB takes the license fee(s) and lets McFarland do all the work. From WB’s pov, maybe they’re not the ad rev they would if they first run on their own station, but cut their risk and marketing cost trying to revitalize the title on their own? They might not get half as much as they could but but the return for what they do have to do or pay I suppose would be worthwhile. Well, of course, duh or they wouldn’t do it. But I mean their exposure would be so little and the title is only collecting dust anyway. It’s not like it’s a one shot deal where they would have to worry about Fox killing the franchise.
Yeah but, Tim…in the Sundance or IFCf eaturette (It’s that show they used to have where they pick apart a scene from script to editing) on the initial DONNIE DARKO DVD release, Kelly raves about how “Head Over Heels” fit the opening segment sooooo perfectly, he couldn’t imagine any other song in there. Makes me think Kelly is full of shit. Or, maybe his movies make me think that.
The song changes in the DD director’s cut bother me more than the text that essentially explains what’s going on. Part of that is because I grew up and Echo & the Bunnymen fan, and Killing Moon is their masterpiece. But as someone said above, it fits lyrically, and the first time I saw the film I was hooked from the moment Will Sargeant’s opening chords rang in. Plus, I prefer Under The Milky Way by The Church to Joy Division in the party scene. Granted Joy Division > The Church overall, but again, the song hit my sweet spot as someone was in high school in the 80’s and followed these bands. Changing the music is as bad as Lucas fixing 1970’s FX w/ CGI.
this is basically a slightly different version of a dp/30
watch out DP – people doing podcasts can do your type
of interviews ..
Damon Lindelof joins the Nerdists to discuss executive producing “Lost”, writing “Star Trek”, and cracking The Rudy Huxtable Conspiracy..
it’s 1 hour audio file …
http://www.nerdist.com/2011/05/nerdist-podcast-85-damon-lindelof/